Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2

On 7/13/2024 8:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/13/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/13/2024 7:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>
You have a wrong understanding of the semantics of the x86 language. You think that the x86 language specifies that skipping instructions do not change the behaviour of a program.

>
You have the wrong understanding of a decider.
All deciders are required to halt.

 And are required to give the correct answer.
 You seem to think it is ok for them to lie if they don't know the right answer.
 

>
As soon as the decider correctly determines that itself
would never halt unless is aborts the simulation of its
input the decider is required to abort this simulation.
>

 Which it never does, so it gives up and guesses.
 YOU lie that it does correctly determines the answer, but that is because you lie and don't look at the input that this decider actually has, but look at the input that would have been given to a different decider to show that one wrong.

*This proves that every rebuttal is wrong somewhere*
No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair of the infinite set of
every HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its own machine address of
0000216b and halts thus proving that every HHH is correct to
reject its input DDD as non-halting.
You seem to fail to understand the notion of differing
process contexts. It is a tricky notion for people that
have never done operating system level programming.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/context-switch-in-operating-system/
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer